Six months ago I ended a 12 month holiday from my ADT + abiraterone. (In this post, I’m not asking for evaluations of the advisability of intermittency.) In making the decision to do the intermittency, my MO, among other things, said that the fact that I was on abiraterone was a positive factor for me relative to the key study done a decade ago that showed that intermittency was non-inferior to continued ADT In terms of future progression and survival. So I fully expected that following my break I would resume both Lupron and abiraterone.
The reason I am posting now is that when I decided to go back onto ADT plus abiraterone, my MO only advised me to go back onto ADT, or Lupron. She said that the absence of clinical trials that showed that intermittency with ADT plus something like abiraterone meant that she didn’t support me continuing on that doubet, even though that is the doublet I was on for about two years prior, during which my PSA level was undetectable over the latest six months. I pressed and pressed (“…why wouldn’t we continue with the formula that’s been working for the past two years?.”) but she did not recommend resuming abiraterone with Lupron. When asked if she would nevertheless prescribe it she agreed to do so, and I ended my break by resuming both Lupron and abariterone.
My confidence in my MO has been greatly shaken by her position. My fear is that she is so slavishly devoted to clinical trials that she neglects to consider things that have a decent chance of being helpful, even though they haven’t been confirmed by clinical trials. In this case, using the absence of an intermittency clinical trial that included abiraterone as a reason to discount the value of abiratetone post- intermittency seems bizarre to me.
My approach ever since my diagnosis has been to try to assess the probabilities that a certain diet or exercise or drug or procedure will help me to live longer. I personally do not insist on only clinical trial results. That seems to me to be putting on. Inappropriately narrow blinders in that it ignores different levels of evidence. Clinical trial evidence is arguably the best quality evidence, but I don’t think we should be ignoring all other data.
My thanks and gratitude to anyone who has gotten this far in my post. I invite your thoughtful responses.